Gary F, Jon S, List,
For the sake of clarifying the questions, consider a few periods from the history of the universe. Here is an abbreviated timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe Chronology of the universe<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe> en.wikipedia.org The chronology of the universe describes the history and future of the universe according to Big Bang cosmology. The earliest stages of the universe's... Let me divide the story into the following three periods: 1. Opening chapters: from the first moments of the Planck era to the dark ages. 2. Middle Chapters: from the beginning of star formation to the present age. 3. Future Chapters: from the near future to the distant future. The questions might be reformulated in the following way. For the first of these periods, is there a Quasi-mind that is the interpreter of the Sign-Universe initially uttered? In what sense might such a Quasi-mind which is realized, perhaps, in the lawful habits that are taking shape in each chapter, speaking to itself? As a great body called the cosmos, it appears that the universe has undergone a remarkable series of metamorphoses over the course of its evolution. As the body of the universe as a whole has evolved, in what manner might the parts of that body be communicating information, meaning or purpose in relation to the other parts and to the larger whole of that body? In that first period, is the ongoing creation of more or less ordered relations in the three universes of possible experience given direction by some kind of ideal? Did such an all-encompassing ideal itself evolve? How did it take shape? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the operation of chance itself has a kind of living character--especially insofar as we imagine that the seeds of the growth of order were spread throughout the universe of chance, conceived in terms of its potential qualities, from the start? Furthermore, let us assume that the ongoing sprouting and growth of the seeds of order is governed by a law of mind in virtue of which the qualities of the parts of the cosmos--at every scale--grow in their relations to one another in virtue of their affectability and, furthermore, that those facts that do occur at any time tend to increase the odds of what might happen next. The operation of this law of mind might be understood, from a more external point of view, in terms of its governance of a universe of facts. The formation and growth of the habits governing these facts happens via a process of association by resemblance and contiguity. Or, from a more internal point of view, we might understand the operation of the law of mind as the governance of the laws of nature--considered as representations in a Quasi-mind--via patterns of synthetic inference in that are abductive and inductive in character. How do these hypotheses concerning the priority of the law of mind vis a vis all other laws shape our understanding of the questions posed above? Turning now to the middle period when galaxies, stars and solar systems having biological forms of life evolved, how might we understand the questions and hypotheses considered above? Can the questions be clarified further? Do the hypotheses that are offered as possible answers to the questions take a different shape when it comes to explaining the evolution of the forms of order that are governing the universe in this period? Do the questions and hypotheses take yet a different shape as we look to the near and distant future? Insofar as some of us in the community of inquiry accept the sorts of hypotheses listed above, I have no qualms about using the proper name God to refer to the Quasi-mind of the universe considered as a whole. As a matter of fact, my own inquiries in philosophy are shaped by such grand hypothesis. In turn, I hope that my actions and the cultivation of my habits of feeling are similarly guided. For those who do have qualms about the use of that proper name, I'm also fine if they prefer to call it the Quasi-mind of the universe. If we adopt the hypotheses that Peirce recommends as plausible, then this great Quasi-mind is growing in its reasonableness as the cosmos comes to be governed by richer systems of physical, chemical, biological and other types of laws. While these aren't the only hypotheses available to explain the ongoing evolution of the cosmos, they do form a set of conjectures that I find particularly attractive. As such, I'd be interested in seeing how those hypotheses might be used to frame the more detailed explanations being developed in the special sciences to explain the origins of (1) physical order, (2) life and (3) self-controlled forms of thought in nature. Yours, Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited Jon, to continue your argument with some follow-up questions: If all thought is dialogic, as Peirce said, is the Universe as Sign an internal dialogue (God talking to himself)? If not, who is the interpreter of the Sign-Universe uttered by God? Is the Creation of the three Universes intentional? Why should we assume that it has any purpose at all, given that it has no context? (Maybe it is Pure Play.) Gary f. } I surrender to the belief that my knowing is a small part of a wider integrated knowing that knits the entire biosphere or creation. [G. Bateson] { http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: 12-May-19 17:50 To: [email protected] Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited List: More than a year ago, I made a case on-List that what Peirce described as "the perfect Sign" in R 283 (partially published as EP 2:545n25; 1906) is the Universe. I think that interpretation holds up well in light of what I have been discussing in this thread. CSP: There are so many different ways of easily proving that there could not be a single sign without any connection with another sign, that it would be superfluous to occupy space with that. We need not just now consider the nature of the connection: suffice it that it exists. Consider then the aggregate formed by a sign and all the signs which its occurrence carries with it. This aggregate will itself be a sign; and we may call it a perfect sign, in the sense that it involves the present existence of no other sign except such as are ingredients of itself. (R 283:259[114]) All Signs are connected with other Signs, such that "there can be no isolated sign" (CP 4.551; 1906); and "if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign" (R 1476:36[5-1/2]; 1904)--in this case, a perfect Sign. CSP: Now no perfect sign is in a statical condition: you might as well suppose a portion of matter to remain at rest during a thousandth of a second, or any other long interval of time. The only signs which are tolerably fixed are non-existent abstractions. We cannot deny that such a sign is real; only its mode of reality is not that active kind which we call existence. The existent acts, and whatsoever acts changes. (R 283:260[115-116]) Just as all matter is always in continuous motion, a perfect Sign as an aggregate of connected Signs is always in continuous "Thought-motion"--i.e., semeiosis. Any static description of an instantaneous state--a discrete position in space at a discrete instant in time, or a definite Proposition that attributes a concept to an individual--is a real but non-existent abstraction. CSP: Every real ingredient of the perfect sign is aging, its energy of action upon the interpretant is running low, its sharp edges are wearing down, its outlines becoming more indefinite. On the other hand, the perfect sign is perpetually being acted upon by its object, from which it is perpetually receiving the accretions of new signs, which bring it fresh energy, and also kindle energy that it already had, but which had lain dormant. In addition, the perfect sign never ceases to undergo changes of the kind we rather drolly call spontaneous, that is, they happen sua sponte but not by its will. They are phenomena of growth. (R 283:260-261[116-117]; 1906) Left to itself, the perfect Sign would exhibit the semeiosic equivalent of entropy--losing energy and definiteness, becoming "dead matter" as "the final result of the complete induration of habit reducing the free play of feeling and the brute irrationality of effort to complete death" (CP 6.201; 1898). Instead, it constantly receives infusions of new Signs and "fresh energy" from its Object, as well as spontaneous changes that "are phenomena of growth." CSP: Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet of assertion of Existential Graphs. This description must remain inadequate though it is, or we should throw open the doors at once to a jam of considerations, which must be taken into account, if at all, in orderly succession. This quasi-mind is an object which from whatever standpoint it be examined, must evidently have, like anything else, its special qualities of susceptibility to determination. Moreover, the determinations come as events each one once for all and never again. Furthermore, it must have its rules or laws, the more special ones variable, others invariable. (R 283:261-262[117-118]) As Peirce similarly wrote elsewhere, "The blank leaf itself is the quasi-mind ... This quasi-mind is itself a sign, a determinable sign" (SS 195; 1906 Mar 9). Specifically, it is "a Seme of The Truth, that is, of the widest Universe of Reality, and at the same time, a Pheme of all that is tacitly taken for granted between the Graphist and Interpreter, from the outset of their discussion" (CP 4.553; 1906). The only kind of modification allowed is scribing EGs on it to express true Propositions, thereby making it more determinate with each additional Graph-Instance. This is also a phenomenon of growth, increasing the Logical Breadth of each Sign of a concept (Spot) and the Logical Depth of each Sign of an individual (Line). Likewise, the perfect Sign's Object is always further determining it to develop toward the Entelechy of absolute Truth. But if the perfect Sign is the entire Universe, what is its Object--"something external to and independent of the sign which determines in the sign an element corresponding to itself" (R 145s:27; 1905)? What is perpetually acting upon it with new Signs that give it fresh energy and kindle its previously dormant energy? What has the absolute freedom to introduce spontaneous changes into it? In other words, what sustains the Universe as something that is living and growing? It seems to me that the unavoidable answer is a straightforward restatement of my Semeiotic Argumentation for the Reality of God. * Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself, and * The entire Universe is a Sign; therefore, * The entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself, and * This we call God--"the definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908). Moreover, since truth is the conformity of a Sign to its Object, the Final Interpretant of the Universe as an Argument--the ideal conclusion of the continuous "inferential process" of semeiosis--is knowledge of God. In other words, God's purpose in uttering the Universe is the revelation of Himself. Regards, Jon S.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
